Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

You clearly did not read my reply. Where I explained that the sea level was three meters lower, but that the river bed was also three meters lower.

Don't worry, I get the picture. I merely suggested that when other experts in the field draw different conclusions (eg MOLA's claim that the Thames was indeed a lot shallower in the 1st century) then you cannot really maintain yourself as the sole and final authority, and your own theories as the last word on the subject.

But let's move on...

So you agree the Brigantes, are likely to have seen the defeat of the ninth as an opportunity to push the Romans out of Britain.

Obviously I do not agree, as that is the opposite of what I wrote above.

Why did the ninth "withdraw to the encampment".

Because they had just been defeated?

No, it takes 2-3 days to move camp.

Just to be clear here - are you suggesting that while Roman infantry could march 15 miles a day, they would then have to wait for two days for their baggage to catch up with them, before making camp? What would they be doing for those days? Where would they be sleeping in the meantime?

You'll be aware that most other people believe Roman soldiers carried much of their kit and put the rest on baggage mules, and could therefore move considerably faster than you are claiming? I mean, this is not a wildly outlandish idea or anything...

And your argument is that the Romans never built walls ...

SIGH!

OK, let's try and reframe this a bit. If you can restrain your urge to make bizarre non sequiturs and so on:

As you believe that Suetonius Paulinus probably withdrew west from London to Silchester (not, as I say, a madly unusual idea), where do you think he fought the final battle? (the actual subject of this thread...)

[EDIT - after reading Michael's post above I see that you did suggest a general location here: https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/thread...#pid352739. Perhaps it would be more useful if we could get back to that?]